2014 Sub 3:00 Marathon Training Thread (Sub 2:50 friendly)

I've been long-distance running since the daily 7-10 milers of high school wrestling. I ran my first marathon at Disney 2011 in 3:40 and quickly fell into ultras, doing the Guts Reactor Run 50k in Georgia, Dances with Dirt 50k in Dade City, Florida, and the Wickham park 50 miler in Melbourne beach, Fl. All in 2011. Ever since, I've been trail running and trying to keep it fun! But, recently I've felt like making a more serious attempt at a marathon, as I only really officially ran ONE 26.2 and didn't take it seriously at all. So, training began in September 2013.

PR's

10k : 38:40

13.1 : 1:32 (Unofficial confidence booster last month)

26.2 : 3:40 (Unoffical 3:28 in late october)

I've been following Hal Higdon's advanced II program, and I must say that the extra added speedwork really seems beneficial, as i am way faster than I've ever been and i don't feel as though I'm exerting a whole lot of energy.

bmxr123 - tell you the truth, I think it will be extremely difficult for you to get that 3:05 in LA, in my opinion. You no doubt have some endurance running all those Ultras, but, your 10K time predicts 1:25 half marathon and you ran 1:32. I understand that it was a time trial, not race environment, so, there is a margin for an error. Still - pretty steep decline in times from 10K to half. LA course should not be a problem for you, but it's not flat as you know, so smart pacing is still important. Unfortunately, not much more I can say out of the info you provided, stay in the thread, participate, report your weekly training, ask questions (if you want) - people are pretty knowledgeable here and some - with a lot of running experience.

bmxr - Are there any half marathons you can do in the next few weeks? 4-6 weeks before race day is a good time to run a half to get a sense of current fitness and to settle on a pace for your goal marathon. Like cal said, you probably want to take 5-7 minutes off your HM time if you're looking to run 3:05.

How do you enjoy the Higdon plan? I just looked it up and was reminded why I didn't choose it . Those weekends look tough. 10 miles at race pace followed by a 20 miler the next day sounds like a recipe for injury. Also, I think his tempo runs are "soft". The fact the tempo segment is only 10-20 minutes and includes 2/3 of the time accelerating to tempo speed for 5-6 minutes sounds very light. In contrast, a Daniels tempo run will include 20 - 40 minutes of fairly tough running (slightly slower in the 40 minute version), or some crazy combination of cruise intervals and steady state tempo segments. For example, compare this beast to a Higdon tempo: 4x(5-6 min T with 1 min rest) + 1 hr easy + 15-20 min T. I do like that Higdon has a lot of MP runs though, similar to the Hansons' programs.

Fascinating stuff. Every time I read it, I still discover something new.

hillcruiser - I found that place where I read about slow running. Though, it's not calling it aerobic base, I think that what it is . I would like to copy paste the stuff related to slow running in two parts, I hope I don't break any copyrights because it's publicly available pretty much everywhere. For anybody, who never read that document, I passionately recommend to do so, it's a really great read and something to think about. It's called Hadd's Approach to Distance Training. Here it comes:

...

Even the easy runs were rarely slower than 7.00m/m. You would have thought 8.00m/m would be a breeze...

It was one of the worst runs of my entire life. I can still recall it. All the way I wanted to either stop and walk, or speed up to normal 90-min pace and get my ass out of there. The rest of the group were laughing and joking and I was gritting my teeth because it felt like my legs were made of wood and someone had tied a piano to my back. Luckily, I was not too suprised and I knew why I felt so bad...

Way back in the late 1960s a professor called John Holloszy got some rats to run on a treadmill for various lengths of time up to 2hrs per day at around 50-75% of the rats' VO2max (easy running, therefore). After 12 weeks, he found that the rats had increased the mitochondria (vital for aerobic energy production) in their running muscles (compared to control rats that did no training). This was a seminal piece of work, because it explained why runners get better with training.

The next question was logical. How long should people run for to optimally cause this effect? Back to Holloszy and his fellow researchers who formed 4 groups of rats to train: one group running 10mins/day, a second running 30mins/day, a third running 60mins and a fourth running 2hrs/day. All at the same easy 50-60% VO2max, and for 5 days/week for 13 weeks. Perhaps logically, the 2hr-group had the greatest increase in mitochondria at the end of the training period.

In a tough endurance test at the end of the training, the 10-min rats managed 22 mins, the 30-min group 41 mins, the 60-min rats could run hard for 50 mins and the 2hr-rats kept going for 111 mins. It was now apparent that time to exhaustion (all rats running the same pace) was directly related to mitochondria development (which itself was directly related to time spent training). But what about intensity? Were mitochondria only created while running long and slow?

In 1982, a guy called Gary Dudley decided to explore this question. He had several groups of rats training five days/week (but only for 8 weeks). Like Holloszy, he also used a range of different training durations, from 5-90 mins per day. However UNLIKE Holloszy (whose rats all trained at the same pace) he also used a range of training intensities. Dudley's rats trained at either 100%, 85%, 70%, 50% or 40% VO2max. He also examined how different intensities and different durations affected different muscle types (fast twitch white, fast twitch red or "intermediate", and slow twitch).

The results were interesting and each fibre type responded differently:

Improvements in mitochondria in fast twitch white fibres began while running at 80% VO2max (but not slower, presumably because they were not recruited) and increased exponentially as the pace climbed to 100% VO2max. However improvements in fast twitch red (intermediate) fibres maximised at sub-max paces (85% VO2max) and did not get better with increased speed. And the best way to cause improvements in slow-twitch fibres was to run long and slow at 70% VO2max (adaptation began from as low as 50% VO2max pace). Faster was not better. Although Dudley found that 90 mins was not better than 60 mins, Holloszy had shown that 2hrs was definitely better than one hour (which ties in nicely with Lydiard-type training recommendationsthat one 2hr run was better than 2 x 60 mins — you have to admit that the guy had great intuition born of his experience trying out different training on himself).

So, (some of you may be way ahead of me already). Why was my 8.00m/m run so difficult? Well, all my training in the 3 months leading up to it had been relatively hard. I had not trained slow enough for my slow twitch fibres to become stimulated to build huge amounts of mitochondria. My fast twitch red were becoming okay (I was reasonably good for 3-6m fast), but I could not access those fast powerful fibres at 8.00m/m. The intensity was too low. I was being forced to use my slow-twitch fibres... and they were not trained for any kind of endurance, and certainly not 2hrs.

It seems paradoxical, that I can be okay at 7.00m/m, but not at 8.15m/m, but here is one example. I was okay if I ran hard enough to force my body to recruit my fast twitch red fibres (and as long as they had enough glycogen). Like most distance runners I have relatively few fast twitch white fibres, so they were little help, and in all my 3 months of training my slow twitch were being by- passed on every training run. (Or rather, recruited, but swamped/overworked). The intensity of each training run was too high for them to be stimulated optimally to best create mitochondria in themselves (and thus improve). So when I ran at a pace that I was forced to access ONLY them, I was sunk.

Following this run, I threw out the intensity and went back to training sensibly. In 10 weeks I was more like my old (younger?) self.

So, to sum up: To improve your LT (which will have a direct impact on your race performances), you must increase the motochondria in your running muscles (in a neat move, the optimal training to improve mitochondria is also the optimal training to improve capillary density).

The more mitochondria, the less lactate at every running pace. But mitochondrial adaptation in each fibre type is training-intensity dependent. If you want to maximise the number of mitochondria in each fibre type, you must train at the correct pace for that type. (remember; the more mitochondria, the less lactate; the less lactate, the faster the racing pace and the more economical you are at any pace, meaning you can keep that pace up for longer.)

Thanks for finding that, CBF. I don't recall our conversation that related to this, just that we had one... I'm going to call shenanigans on Hadd's application of scientific research to his own experience. While I'll concede there's a physiological component to his experience, it's not enough to explain such a dramatic effect. The body doesn't use only fast twitch fibers for very fast paces, only intermediate fibers for intermediate paces, and only slow twitch fibers for slow paces. Even if it did, the cutoff for intermediate fibers at intermediate paces and slow fibers for slow paces is going to be way, way faster than 7 minute miles for most people.

A Higdon Advanced II tempo session is as comparable to a Daniels TLT session as a tea cup is to the abstract concept of justice.

Do you think think Higdon's tempos are supposed to serve a different purpose, or are just poorly designed. I guess the pace runs on Saturdays are closer to a true tempo run, so what's the point of his tempo runs?

Thanks for finding that, CBF. I don't recall our conversation that related to this, just that we had one... I'm going to call shenanigans on Hadd's application of scientific research to his own experience. While I'll concede there's a physiological component to his experience, it's not enough to explain such a dramatic effect. The body doesn't use only fast twitch fibers for very fast paces, only intermediate fibers for intermediate paces, and only slow twitch fibers for slow paces. Even if it did, the cutoff for intermediate fibers at intermediate paces and slow fibers for slow paces is going to be way, way faster than 7 minute miles for most people.

I am not really deep in that physiology stuff, but the situations Hadd is referring too are very close to what many runners experience here on the forums. You constantly hear those comments about not being able to run those slower paces - it seems that many of the "new runners" believe that the faster they run in the training the better. Many of them conclude based on the fact they can run speedier sessions that they can avoid those "junk miles" stuff.

I haven't read his book and have only a cursory awareness of his approach. But from what I do know I believe his plans, and the workouts in his plans, are best suited to a different runner at a different stage of development with different life commitments or level of dedication to training. His tempo runs serve the same purpose as a generic tempo run in a 5K, 10K, half marathon, any other distance plan. Not terribly efficient nor marathon-specific (which are hallmarks of Daniels workouts) but nevertheless a decent quality session that's not terribly demanding nor difficult to fit into a busy schedule.

Did we hash out the whole terminology issue with what a tempo, "true" tempo, "fake" tempo, half-caff tempo in this thread or somewhere else? What I'd consider a "true" tempo run to be is what I'd call a "classic" or "traditional" tempo run (which is equally meaningless) - a 20:00 steady session at 1-hour race pace. So I think Hidgon's tempos are as close to what I'd consider a "true" tempo as anything, and his pace runs on the weekend would be the marathon-specific tempos.

I am not really deep in that physiology stuff, but the situations Hadd is referring too are very close to what many runners experience here on the forums. You constantly hear those comments about not being able to run those slower paces - it seems that many of the "new runners" believe that the faster they run in the training the better. Many of them conclude based on the fact they can run speedier sessions that they can avoid those "junk miles" stuff.

Okay, I remember now. All of the people I've seen post about this "problem" here are talking about being unable to slow down from a pace that's still far slower than any tempo or rising blood lactate efforts, though - all predominantly slow twitch fiber stuff. At that point I still believe it's a neuromotor issue and not a metabolic / energetics issue.

I haven't read his book and have only a cursory awareness of his approach. But from what I do know I believe his plans, and the workouts in his plans, are best suited to a different runner at a different stage of development with different life commitments or level of dedication to training. His tempo runs serve the same purpose as a generic tempo run in a 5K, 10K, half marathon, any other distance plan. Not terribly efficient nor marathon-specific (which are hallmarks of Daniels workouts) but nevertheless a decent quality session that's not terribly demanding nor difficult to fit into a busy schedule.

Did we hash out the whole terminology issue with what a tempo, "true" tempo, "fake" tempo, half-caff tempo in this thread or somewhere else? What I'd consider a "true" tempo run to be is what I'd call a "classic" or "traditional" tempo run (which is equally meaningless) - a 20:00 steady session at 1-hour race pace. So I think Hidgon's tempos are as close to what I'd consider a "true" tempo as anything, and his pace runs on the weekend would be the marathon-specific tempos.

Leaving the word tempo out since I think we all mostly agree on the variations of tempo running: I'm trying to figure out what the point is of running 5-6 minutes at threshold pace or slightly above it. He sandwiches it between two very easy days (3 miles or rest) so I assume it's supposed to be "hardish". It just seems soft.

"Tempo Runs: A tempo run is a continuous run with a buildup in the middle to near 10-K race pace. Notice I said "near" 10-K race pace. Coach Jack Daniels defines the peak pace for tempo runs as the pace you might run if racing flat-out for about an hour. That's fairly fast, particularly if the tempo run is 45 minutes long, but you're only going to be near peak pace for 3-6 minutes in the middle of the run. In the Advanced 2 programs, tempo runs are scheduled for Tuesdays or Thursdays. Here's how to do this workout. A tempo run of 30 to 40 minutes would begin with 10-15 minutes easy running, build to peak speed during the next 10-20 minutes, then finish with 5-10 minutes easy running. The pace buildup should be gradual, not sudden, with peak speed coming about two-thirds into the workout and only for those few minutes mentioned above. You can do tempo runs almost anywhere: on the road, on trails or even on a track. Tempo runs should not be punishing. You should finish refreshed, which will happen if you don't push the pace too hard or too long. It helps also to pick a scenic course for your tempo runs. You can do your tempo run with another runner, but usually it works better to run solo. There's less danger of going too slow or (more the problem) too fast if you choose his pace, not yours."

Also, I think a lot of Steve Magness's points about vo2 max could also be applied to lactate threshold. We should be running at a variety of speeds for a variety of distances, not worrying too much about the magic workout that will somehow transform us into olympians.

10-15 warmup, 10-20 progression run to 10K pace (what he identified as "peak pace" - considerably faster than tempo pace for a 3-hour marathoner) which should be held for 3-6 minutes, 5-10 cooldown. While there's little adaptive benefit to a single 10 minute run at slightly-faster-than-easy pace, I think the 10-20 minute window allows the runner some flexibility depending on how s/he's feeling. The individual weekly workouts aren't that great, but there's 18 weeks of them. His tempo runs are simply what Ihmels and Simmons mentioned in the article I linked above as a progression run starting slower than LT pace and ending faster than LT pace.

I think the general sentiment that we shouldn't belabor training individual energy systems but rather focus on a variety of paces for a variety of race distances is good. But lactate thresholds are different from VO2 max in that they're highly trainable. That there's more than one threshold lends itself to what Magness suggests, though, as anything in the ballpark is adaptive whereas vVO2 Max is a very precise pace that is impossible to hit without getting in the lab for all your training and regular testing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very critical of Higdon's approach. I'm not claiming the approach or his workouts are good. Just that they're not bad for certain people.

All - obviousIy, I was thinking about it from the very beginning, but decided to wait. There will be some forumites here who will show up couple of times and then stop participating in the thread. That is totally understandable, but it changes one thing for most of us, I think. It makes the marathon results of those people as related to this thread's life as any of, let say, 45,000 runners at Chicago marathon. You can basically go and research a race result for any of Chicago marathon's participant. But it has nothing to do with our thread. So, I would like to remove from the races list those runners who do not show up for more than, let's say, a month. I think it's fair. I, for example, don't have a desire or, more exact, a virtual connection to a person who doesn't contribute to the life of this thread. Also, on the same subject, I will, probably wait to add any race to the list for a runner who just recently joined the site - waiting for more his(her) contribution to the thread/site. Thank you.

Cal - I agree. I actually started going a little in that direction last year, not adding dkggpeters or rachels fall results to the list even though I knew what they were. It felt weird to add someone's result that wasn't contributing to the thread anymore and didn't explicitly post a result to this thread.

As for newer members, I'd be inclined to add them anyways in the interest of inclusivity, but remove them if they stop contributing.

Cal – I don't think anyone here would question your judgment, especially when you're putting so much time and energy into it.

All – Someone in the Boston forum started a thread to offer to lead a 2:55ish pace team at Boston. I would definitely be interested in running with a group at 2:55 pace (at least through Mile 16) if others here are interested. Corral placement will complicate matters, so maybe specifics should wait until then. But I'm curious now if anyone thinks this is generally a good idea.

Calbears: As usual I agree with you. Except with running the same 13.x mile route every day.

As far as Tempo/LT runs go, should I stop working myself so hard with my tempo Tuesday 9-10 mile runs that have 5 mile tempo sessions (@ 10 mile race pace)? I don't finish feeling completely burned but certainly not refreshed either. Is feeling refreshed key? Is the LT run similar to other training concepts where harder is not necessarily better and only means longer recovery? Or is there a place for longer LT runs if you can handle them and recover by the next day?

Calbears: As usual I agree with you. Except with running the same 13.x mile route every day.

As far as Tempo/LT runs go, should I stop working myself so hard with my tempo Tuesday 9-10 mile runs that have 5 mile tempo sessions (@ 10 mile race pace)? I don't finish feeling completely burned but certainly not refreshed either. Is feeling refreshed key? Is the LT run similar to other training concepts where harder is not necessarily better and only means longer recovery? Or is there a place for longer LT runs if you can handle them and recover by the next day?

Strugglr- I think that's a little on the long side for "true tempo" pace, and your 10 mile pace is pretty close to true tempo. Hudson would have you run that 30 minute tempo at hm pace, Daniels would also, or do something like 4x5 minutes T with 1 minute break, 10-60 minutes easy, 15-20 minutes T. I like how he breaks off the tempo running so you can get a lot of volume in a run without killing yourself.

Cal – I don't think anyone here would question your judgment, especially when you're putting so much time and energy into it.

All – Someone in the Boston forum started a thread to offer to lead a 2:55ish pace team at Boston. I would definitely be interested in running with a group at 2:55 pace (at least through Mile 16) if others here are interested. Corral placement will complicate matters, so maybe specifics should wait until then. But I'm curious now if anyone thinks this is generally a good idea.

Patrick - I agree, I should actually concentrate more on my day job. Seriously... Re 2:55 pacing - I would probably be interested in 2:50 pacing - 2:55 is way too slow for me (hope I won't be sorry about these words after Boston )

Strugglr - taking into account that 3/4 of my 13.x run is happening when you cannot see anything anyway (early morning), it doesn't mater if you run every day the same route or a different one .

I just want to join the conversation and get the posts emailed (not sure how/if you can subscribe to a topic with the new forums) to help my training for Boston. I am running Rocky Raccoon in 10 days or so and am hoping for a quick recovery before I start training for Boston. My training has never focused on or had scheduled speed work. I usually run hard when I feel strong, otherwise, I am pretty content running slow.... very slow compared to a lot your training times. However, I do run a fair amount of miles each week, probably averaged between 70 or 80 miles in 2013. I am hoping to gain some good information and participate.

CBF – Ha! I have full confidence you'll go sub-2:50 by the end of the year. No question. I'm more concerned about how you'll do at your upcoming HM. You gotta go faster than 1:24. Come on!

Patrick - as PK would say - Hahaha - you nailed it - I actually also concerned about upcoming half - I didn't run any "speed" workouts since my last cycle. But I will not be too much concerned about any outcome (until it's really really bad). Re progress - you are definitely on the way there - smart training, great mileage, just cut those race times minute by minute .

I just want to join the conversation and get the posts emailed (not sure how/if you can subscribe to a topic with the new forums) to help my training for Boston. I am running Rocky Raccoon in 10 days or so and am hoping for a quick recovery before I start training for Boston. My training has never focused on or had scheduled speed work. I usually run hard when I feel strong, otherwise, I am pretty content running slow.... very slow compared to a lot your training times. However, I do run a fair amount of miles each week, probably averaged between 70 or 80 miles in 2013. I am hoping to gain some good information and participate.

Is rocky raccoon a 100 mile race?!? I just googled it and that's all I saw. Geez that must be tough on the body.

I just want to join the conversation and get the posts emailed (not sure how/if you can subscribe to a topic with the new forums) to help my training for Boston. I am running Rocky Raccoon in 10 days or so and am hoping for a quick recovery before I start training for Boston. My training has never focused on or had scheduled speed work. I usually run hard when I feel strong, otherwise, I am pretty content running slow.... very slow compared to a lot your training times. However, I do run a fair amount of miles each week, probably averaged between 70 or 80 miles in 2013. I am hoping to gain some good information and participate.

Welcome jackfrost9p! To subscribe for topic you need to go to the very top of the page, place a mouse over your avatar, choose "Edit Profile" and then on the page which is displayed, select "Your Notifications". Check the checkbox there - "Email me whenever someone posts to any content I specifically follow.". Then you need to select to follow this thread - select "Following this topic" (at the top right of the page). Look at all the selected checkboxes on the "Your Notifications" - I think by default you will get emails for all the topics you will create messages in.

Btw, it's pretty impressive you ran 2:52 at that torrential weather at CIM!

All - obviousIy, I was thinking about it from the very beginning, but decided to wait. There will be some forumites here who will show up couple of times and then stop participating in the thread. That is totally understandable, but it changes one thing for most of us, I think. It makes the marathon results of those people as related to this thread's life as any of, let say, 45,000 runners at Chicago marathon. You can basically go and research a race result for any of Chicago marathon's participant. But it has nothing to do with our thread. So, I would like to remove from the races list those runners who do not show up for more than, let's say, a month. I think it's fair. I, for example, don't have a desire or, more exact, a virtual connection to a person who doesn't contribute to the life of this thread. Also, on the same subject, I will, probably wait to add any race to the list for a runner who just recently joined the site - waiting for more his(her) contribution to the thread/site. Thank you.

Sounds fair. Theres always a few each year who post a couple of times and disappear. I dont have a full booked, dont understand half of the techy things you talk about, and offer little in advice...so im staying.

All - obviousIy, I was thinking about it from the very beginning, but decided to wait. There will be some forumites here who will show up couple of times and then stop participating in the thread. That is totally understandable, but it changes one thing for most of us, I think. It makes the marathon results of those people as related to this thread's life as any of, let say, 45,000 runners at Chicago marathon. You can basically go and research a race result for any of Chicago marathon's participant. But it has nothing to do with our thread. So, I would like to remove from the races list those runners who do not show up for more than, let's say, a month. I think it's fair. I, for example, don't have a desire or, more exact, a virtual connection to a person who doesn't contribute to the life of this thread. Also, on the same subject, I will, probably wait to add any race to the list for a runner who just recently joined the site - waiting for more his(her) contribution to the thread/site. Thank you.

Sounds fair. Theres always a few each year who post a couple of times and disappear.I dont have a full booked, dont understand half of the techy things you talk about, and offer little in advice...so im staying.

Exactly... Just post stuff like this once in a while and you are safe to stay here.

Strugglr- I think that's a little on the long side for "true tempo" pace, and your 10 mile pace is pretty close to true tempo. Hudson would have you run that 30 minute tempo at hm pace, Daniels would also, or do something like 4x5 minutes T with 1 minute break, 10-60 minutes easy, 15-20 minutes T. I like how he breaks off the tempo running so you can get a lot of volume in a run without killing yourself.

Thanks Frank. I just feel like 4x5 or 15-20 at T pace is a wussy workout. I feel like my two speedier days each week need to be tough. Maybe that's my lack of experience talking. I've done better this cycle running easy days easier at least.

It is nice to run together but you will find that even at 2:55 pace Boston will be crowded.

I wonder if it will be less crowded this year at sub 3:00?

I read a post last fall stating although the average BQ+xx times were faster, the average qualifying times are 5-10 minutes slower (aka older more experienced runners coming back in 2014). A good example take my home town, Boise. Last year 12 runners finished the race, this year 50+ are registered. It's a lot of people who've been and can go any year, but chose to go this year.

All - obviousIy, I was thinking about it from the very beginning, but decided to wait. There will be some forumites here who will show up couple of times and then stop participating in the thread. That is totally understandable, but it changes one thing for most of us, I think. It makes the marathon results of those people as related to this thread's life as any of, let say, 45,000 runners at Chicago marathon. You can basically go and research a race result for any of Chicago marathon's participant. But it has nothing to do with our thread. So, I would like to remove from the races list those runners who do not show up for more than, let's say, a month. I think it's fair. I, for example, don't have a desire or, more exact, a virtual connection to a person who doesn't contribute to the life of this thread. Also, on the same subject, I will, probably wait to add any race to the list for a runner who just recently joined the site - waiting for more his(her) contribution to the thread/site. Thank you.

Sounds fair. Theres always a few each year who post a couple of times and disappear.I dont have a full booked, dont understand half of the techy things you talk about, and offer little in advice...so im staying.

Exactly... Just post stuff like this once in a while and you are safe to stay here.

All - obviousIy, I was thinking about it from the very beginning, but decided to wait. There will be some forumites here who will show up couple of times and then stop participating in the thread. That is totally understandable, but it changes one thing for most of us, I think. It makes the marathon results of those people as related to this thread's life as any of, let say, 45,000 runners at Chicago marathon. You can basically go and research a race result for any of Chicago marathon's participant. But it has nothing to do with our thread. So, I would like to remove from the races list those runners who do not show up for more than, let's say, a month. I think it's fair. I, for example, don't have a desire or, more exact, a virtual connection to a person who doesn't contribute to the life of this thread. Also, on the same subject, I will, probably wait to add any race to the list for a runner who just recently joined the site - waiting for more his(her) contribution to the thread/site. Thank you.

Sounds fair. Theres always a few each year who post a couple of times and disappear.I dont have a full booked, dont understand half of the techy things you talk about, and offer little in advice...so im staying.

Exactly... Just post stuff like this once in a while and you are safe to stay here.

All - obviousIy, I was thinking about it from the very beginning, but decided to wait. There will be some forumites here who will show up couple of times and then stop participating in the thread. That is totally understandable, but it changes one thing for most of us, I think. It makes the marathon results of those people as related to this thread's life as any of, let say, 45,000 runners at Chicago marathon. You can basically go and research a race result for any of Chicago marathon's participant. But it has nothing to do with our thread. So, I would like to remove from the races list those runners who do not show up for more than, let's say, a month. I think it's fair. I, for example, don't have a desire or, more exact, a virtual connection to a person who doesn't contribute to the life of this thread. Also, on the same subject, I will, probably wait to add any race to the list for a runner who just recently joined the site - waiting for more his(her) contribution to the thread/site. Thank you.

Well said. Brocknoxious had a similar view if I remember correctly....but it included throat punches.

Strugglr- I think that's a little on the long side for "true tempo" pace, and your 10 mile pace is pretty close to true tempo. Hudson would have you run that 30 minute tempo at hm pace, Daniels would also, or do something like 4x5 minutes T with 1 minute break, 10-60 minutes easy, 15-20 minutes T. I like how he breaks off the tempo running so you can get a lot of volume in a run without killing yourself.

Thanks Frank. I just feel like 4x5 or 15-20 at T pace is a wussy workout. I feel like my two speedier days each week need to be tough. Maybe that's my lack of experience talking. I've done better this cycle running easy days easier at least.

It's not 4x5 OR 15-20, it's 4x5 AND 15-20. And it's usually part of a long run padded with warm up and cool down and up to an hour easy between the two segments. Not only is it not wussy, it's probably harder than any workout I've ever done. Daniels only does two quality workouts/week, but they are manly. Can't wait to get into that part of my schedule in a few weeks.

All - obviousIy, I was thinking about it from the very beginning, but decided to wait. There will be some forumites here who will show up couple of times and then stop participating in the thread. That is totally understandable, but it changes one thing for most of us, I think. It makes the marathon results of those people as related to this thread's life as any of, let say, 45,000 runners at Chicago marathon. You can basically go and research a race result for any of Chicago marathon's participant. But it has nothing to do with our thread. So, I would like to remove from the races list those runners who do not show up for more than, let's say, a month. I think it's fair. I, for example, don't have a desire or, more exact, a virtual connection to a person who doesn't contribute to the life of this thread. Also, on the same subject, I will, probably wait to add any race to the list for a runner who just recently joined the site - waiting for more his(her) contribution to the thread/site. Thank you.

Well said. Brocknoxious had a similar view if I remember correctly....but it included throat punches.

Yep, Brock is the original source of this way to handle stuff. But no throat punches this year .

I hope i don't get crucified for this, but I should also add that I'm running the A1A Ft. Lauderdale marathon on Feb 16th. Before people jump to conclusions, let me say that for the past three years I've kept a decent weekly mileage (30-50mpw), all while throwing in tempo and long runs. Although pretty subconscious, it has been an effort, nonetheless, towards building endurance and speed. Since recently firing up the ol' garmin again, I have noticed how much faster my “comfortable” pace has become.

Frank2000: Hal’s 10+20 weekends were intimidating, so I bumped up the Saturday runs on weeks 5 and 7 to 10@mp to get my body used to the recovery needed for the 10+20 weekends that have followed(I have one left now and then I taper for feb 16th).

I agree with you guys’ suggestions to try for a better 13.1 PR, but I feel like I’ve missed my chance with the Ft. Lauderdale marathon 3 ½ weeks away(which I do plan to RACE). All of these “feel-good” 10 milers @MP have left me with lots of confidence. Never is there over-exertion, and I feel like I have plenty of "gas left in the tank" when I’m done. I just know I could very well have done another 3 just like the first 10.

I think this year will be more crowded. I ran a 3:07 last year and came in 33xxth place. It was wall to wall runners. When I did 2:48 in 2011 I was 42x I believe. I think a 2:48 last year was like 800th. The new registration guidelines makes sure the faster runners get in. So it will be more crowded at front

I'm think it will take 2:45 for 1st corral, 2:50-2:51 for 2nd and 2:55 for 3rd.

It's not 4x5 OR 15-20, it's 4x5 AND 15-20. And it's usually part of a long run padded with warm up and cool down and up to an hour easy between the two segments. Not only is it not wussy, it's probably harder than any workout I've ever done. Daniels only does two quality workouts/week, but they are manly. Can't wait to get into that part of my schedule in a few weeks.

Ohhhh....rainBOWS...that does sound tough.

All this talk about a crowded Boston this year makes me almost ok with having to wait until 2015.

Remove From Your Block List

Manage Follow Preferences

Block

When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.